Parliament moves to get rid of 'tablecloth' ballot papers.

: In 2010, there were so many Senate candidates in New South Wales the ballot paper was over a metre wide and printed in size eight font. The Government says voters shouldn't need magnifying glasses, so it's moving to get rid of what it calls, 'vexatious candidates'. Nomination fees will be doubled and candidates will need the backing of more people to get their name on the ballot paper.

Transcript

icon-plusicon-minus

MARK COLVIN: Voting shouldn't need a magnifying glass. In some states, in some Federal elections, there've been so many Senate candidates that the ballot papers have been nicknamed tablecloths. At the 2010 federal election, there were so many candidates in New South Wales that the ballot paper was over a metre wide and printed in small font.

The Federal Government says something needs to change before Australians go to the polls this September.

From Canberra, James Glenday reports.

JAMES GLENDAY: The Senate ballot paper has been ballooning in recent years, particularly in Australia's most populous state. At the 2010 election it was dubbed 'the tablecloth'.

JOHN FAULKNER: The ballot paper for the Senate in New South Wales as 1020 millimetres wide - so over a metre wide. And the print, and this is important, was down to 8.5 points.

JAMES GLENDAY: Labor Senator John Faulkner says ballot papers can't be made any bigger, so the font might have to be smaller this year, unless something is done.

JOHN FAULKNER: I'm concerned that if we have more groups on the New South Wales Senate ballot paper we're effectively going to have to supply magnifying glasses to voters.

JAMES GLENDAY: The answer, according to the Government, is to get rid of what it calls 'vexatious candidates'. It wants to double nomination fees. Under new legislation, it will cost $2000 to nominate for the Senate and $1000 for the Lower House. It's the first fee increase since 2006.

Candidates - not endorsed by a registered political party will also need the backing of 100 electors, instead of the current 50, to get their name on the ballot paper.

JOHN FAULKNER: And I think it is reasonable to expect a fair-dinkum candidate in a seat of 60,000 to 80,000 electors that they should be able to get 100 of those electors to nominate them.

JAMES GLENDAY: But not everyone agrees with the changes. Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan, the only DLP representative in Federal Parliament, says the fee increase is too much, too quickly.

JOHN MADDIGAN: It seems to me that more and more people are voting for the so-called small minor parties, independent or fringe or 'nutters', as you call them or some people in this place call them, because they're sick to death of the way the parliament is running. And that they're taking democracy back into their own hands because they're fed up.

JAMES GLENDAY: He fears the proposed laws will reinforce the dominance of the Coalition and Labor. And says minor parties will remember that decision when they come to allocate preferences.

JAMES MADDIGAN: I've spoken to almost half of the minor parties on the Australian Electoral Commission website and without fail every one of them see these increases, increases that they were largely unaware of, as a deliberate attack on the ability of small and medium parties and independents to participate in the democratic process.

JAMES GLENDAY: In the 2010 election, half the New South Wales Senate candidates got less than 200 first preference votes. On average, less than five votes each.

ARTHUR SINODINOS: Frankly sometimes independents are, particularly in the Senate context, thrown up as a result of the vagaries of the voting system.

JAMES GLENDAY: Liberal Senator, Arthur Sinodinos, says the bill will do nothing to reinforce a two-party system because people have changed the way they vote.

ARTHUR SINODINOS: There are fewer and fewer rusted-on supporters. In some ways that can be a good thing, because it means in the political market we all have to work harder to earn their vote.

JAMES GLENDAY: The bill will also make some changes to postal voting. It's already passed the Lower House and will make it through the Senate with the support of the Coalition.